Oh, they're both computers. Raspberry Pi is a computer, too. You could make a decent argument for a TI-83 being a computer.
Now, whether either is a PC (Personal Computer, in the sense as used by the industry rather than in the literal definitions of "personal" and "computer") is another question. In no particular order...
Does it run software? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes. Is it interactive? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes. Can it be transported by one person? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes. Is it priced such that a typical adult could afford one? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes. Can I manage my data on it? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Limited (yes within an app, but no full filesystem access without hacks). Can I install software on it? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes. Can I write software for it? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes, with Apple approval or some hackery. Can I write software on it? Surface Pro: Yes, easily if you use the keyboard covers. iPad: Kind of (you could write the code, especially with a BT keyboard...) but not really, so far as I know (no compiler that will bundle up an app for you that can then be distributed and run). Can I run arbitrary software on it? Surface Pro: Yes, although you may have to disable Secure Boot to install your own OS. iPad: No, not without hacks. Can it access the Internet? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes. Can I add hardware to it? Surface Pro: Limited yes (USB port, microSD slot, proprietary cover keyboard/trackpads). iPad: Very limited (Bluetooth, stuff that uses the proprietary connector). Can I connect peripherals to it? Surface Pro: Yes (USB, Bluetooth, microHDMI, proprietary dock port). iPad: Limited (Bluetooth, proprietary dock port). Can I modify the internal hardware? Surface Pro: No. iPad: No. Can I modify the OS? Surface Pro: Yes (you have admin, can install drivers, etc.). iPad: No (not without jailbreak hacks). Is it compatible with other PCs? Surface Pro: Yes mostly (Windows software and drivers, USB peripherals, BT peripherals). iPad: Very limited (iOS software, BT peripherals).
You'd have to stretch the definition of PC pretty far to make it cover iPads. Of course, there have been lots of "PCs" that didn't meet all of these criteria, but the iPad really struggles. It largely comes down to "does the owner have personal control of the machine's computing power?" The Surface Pro is a mostly-unqualified Yes (Secure Boot must be disabled or the other OS must be signed and the signing key be trusted, but that is a supported scenario). The iPad is a mostly-unqualified No (jailbreak hacks, which are completely unsupported, aside).
Android overtook Apple long ago, but otherwise that looks about right. I think Symbian is currently ahead of Blackberry, but Symbian is also officially a retired platform, while Blackberry just released a major new OS, so Symbian will fall behind quickly. Placement between Blackberry and Windows Phone remains to be see, but; WP8 moved before BB10 and I believe there are still more WP7 devices than BB9 devices so the logical upgrade path for those users is going to favor Windows Phone. Still, the combination of everything below Apple (including stuff you didn't even mention, like WebOS and Maemo/MeeGo) is going to be less than Apple for the near future, and the combination of everything less than Android (including Apple) is going to be less than Android for a good while as well (yes, they currently have a strict majority of smartphones).
For the record, Windows RT (which runs on the cheaper Surface tablets and a handful of other devices) can run most legacy Windows apps just fine, so long as they are either re-compiled for ARM or are written in.NET (with no x86-specific dependencies). It requires running a fairly user-friendly unlocking tool, and is quite unofficial, but it works. There's also a project that will (already does, for some software) allow loading an x86 EXE on RT, dynamically recompiling it to ARM, and then running that. This is obviously much slower than compiling for ARM in the first place, but it's already possible to play some legacy Windows games and run some other software (just using the x86 binaries).
Windows Phone, on the other hand... not so much. Although it was eventually discovered how to run third-party EXEs (not simply sideloaded apps, but full-permission executables) on WP7, no such hack is yet available for WP8 to my knowledge.
Like what? Serious question, what do you *require* the keyboard for? I mean, typing an email or writing code using the on-screen keyboard isn't pleasant, but it's at least as good as on any other tablet's OSK. The screen is big enough that the key sizing and spacing is very nearly 100% in the default keyboard mode, although it also takes up about half the screen due to the aspect ratio.
The tablet-y stuff (what you'd usually be doing on the couch) is fine using touch alone, or touch plus stylus. For that matter, the stylus can be used for text entry pretty easily; Microsoft's handwriting recognition was meh in XP but improved substantially in Vista and was great by 7; it should be truly superb in 8.
Just FYI: There are already x86 emulators for Windows RT. Good luck getting even Pentium 2 perf out of them (mind you, these are ported by amateurs; MS could probably do better). It's possible to boot XP, if you don't mind taking an extended coffee break while you wait. The realistic clock speed is probably in the double digits, at least for the current crop of emulators which do all the dynamic recompilation on a single thread (thus losing out on the 4-core CPU in the Surface RT).
There's also an emulation layer application, which dynamically recompiles (using a modified DOSBox engine) a single application and any x86 libraries it requires then links it to the system libraries and runs it within Windows RT. This is far faster than emulating an entire CPU (including the kernel-mode-only stuff like page tables and whatnot) and then running a complete OS on it just to run one program in that OS. The perf is still pretty poor - Pentium 2 at best, probably not quite there - but again, this is one random hacker's hobby project, not the work of a team of emulation and compatibility experts. It's also only a few weeks since the project was started.
Of course, this requires using the "jailbreak" hack for RT, which is a lame requirement even if MS has shown no particular interest in shutting it down. There's also a steadily growing library of ported software for RT, including limited support for both Java and Python already.
The funny thing is, your list of "it'll run..." items is also true for Windows RT (Windows on ARM). Surface RT already has software to do all that, and it's not even a particularly cutting edge ARM chip. That said, since Atom has now managed to put itself in the same power-demand range as ARM, it is debatable whether the slightly increased price of the Intel chipset isn't worth the far greater library of available software.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft launch a "Surface Home" (or similarly named) device that has a Surface RT-like form factor (thinner than the Pro, no active cooling), 3 or 4 GB of RAM (Surface RT is fine with 2, but that's short for an x86 machine today), at least 64GB of storage, an Atom CPU, and a 1366x768 display (which is lower than I'd like but is a tolerable DPI on a 10" screen). It would probably cost $600-$700 as described, a bit more if they included a stylus digitizer (which would also probably make the case a bit thicker) or a high-res screen (which is an option I'd pay for if at all reasonably priced). Yeah, it wouldn't be a computing beast, but it would outperform the Surface RT (not by much with the current crop of Atom chips, but by enough to matter), could run just about anything, would have the RT's 8 hour battery life, and would be priced in a range acceptable to students and home users. It would come with Win8 (not Pro) but could be upgraded to Pro for the relatively low in-place upgrade pricing MS offers; this would make it suitable as a BYOD machine above and beyond the capabilities of RT, as it would be able to join domains and such.
What makes a smartphone a different kind of device?
* Touchscreen? Early smartphones didn't have touchscreens, many non-smartphones do.
* Powerful processor? Many "dumbphones" of today have vastly more powerful processors than smartphones of yesteryear. All cell phones have CPUs; the difference is just cost and battery life.
* Graphics processor? Early smartphones lacked them, and these days it's part of the CPU (or rather, the SOC) anyhow. Minor.
* Installable apps? Present on dumbphones for years (Java ME), they just weren't much good and were a pain to install and manage.
* App stores? Old smartphones lacked them, and once you have the ability to run apps in general you can add a store easily.
* Good browser and email? See the comments about apps in general. It just required a powerful enough device with the right input scheme... and the definition of "right input scheme" has changed over time and was never smartphone-specific anyhow (see "texting phones" with better keyboards than most smartphones).
* High-res screen? Minor upgrade, really, and again this is something that "feature phones" have had for years.
The thing that changed the smartphone market wasn't the invention of a new class of device. It was the change from expensive devices that targeted techies, businesspeople, and the wealthy (WinMo, BB, and Symbian, in no particular order) to devices that targeted everyday users and became inexpensive enough to be affordable to the masses. It wasn't the app stores, or the apps themselves, or the browsers, or the YouTube players, or the email clients, or the touchscreens, or any other single class of smartphone feature. It was the combination of those, and the goal of targeting (and marketing to, very successfully) the general populace.
How do you compete with that? Target people who today wouldn't even have phones at all? This is possible, but mostly means going after increasingly small niche markets filled with people who have no money, so their parents or caregivers or whatnot must purchase for them. Provide a device that doubles as phone and PC? That may work, but tablets and even smartphones are increasingly getting there already. Provide a radically new interface (direct mental connection, VR, whatever)? OK, but you'd have to do it in a way that surpasses what can be done with a smartphone and a few months of work on the hardware... while still providing the features of a smartphone.
No, the most likely thing to upset the status quo is if the current big players get lazy and complacent. WinMo (or something descended from it) could still be rocking along with a 20%+ market share if MS had brought out an iPhone- or Android-like overhaul of the interface years ago. Hell, given that they had a platform to start from, they could be well above that. But they didn't; Microsoft, along with RIM, got blindsided by the consumer smartphone craze, and despite their head start in smartphones as a category, they were too slow to adapt to the immense change in the market. If iOS and Android ever stop working to provide everything that a user could want, and instead settle into a comfortable position of feeding their cash cow just enough to keep milking it, sooner or later somebody will release something new that offers what users really wanted but weren't getting, and will market it well, and will steal large amounts of market share before the current leaders can react. But, I'd be surprised if that happens any time soon.
I've had trouble with pushes containing multiple commits that include changes to the same binary file, but I'm running an unofficial port of Git that is probably a bit out of date even if there isn't an actual issue in the port itself.
Wrong and wrong. The NTDEV project (now, generally, "Windows") has been using Source Depot (Microsoft's internal Perforce) since well before VSTS existed, and given the size of the existing code base, much less the immense revision history, migrating to another version control scheme is very much a "if it ain't broke..." situation.
However, many other teams within MS, especially those working on newly developed or re-written code, use VSTS/TFS. This is even true for many smaller projects that would be described as "Windows" stuff, so long as they aren't built as part of the nightly builds or included as dependencies of anything that are. TFS is also used for many other things; the NTDEV folks use it for its task management features (although not the bug tracker, which is also a legacy program they apparently didn't want to migrate off of), while many other groups use it for bug tracking as well.
I never heard of anybody using Visual SourceSafe, though. I don't even recall it ever being mentioned. Subversion was more likely.
You suspect correctly, but bear in mind that Win8 (as runs on Surface Pro) really *is* a full desktop OS. It contains things like backward compatibility with previous Windows versions and the software written for them (which means, among other things, a shitload of different versions of the same libraries). It also contains features like full hypervisor-based virtualization and management tools for it (Client Hyper-V), tons of system management tools (Event Viewer, Resource Monitor, Disk Management, Local Security Policy, etc.). It contains built-in scripting environments (CMD, Powershell, Windows Script Host, etc.), build tools (compilers for all the core.NET languages, at a minimum), and web developer/debugger tools in the browser. It contains a suite of server software - local file and printer (SMB), remote login (Remote Desktop, Powershell remoting), FTP, HTTP(S), and so on, with support for ASP.NET and whatever else IIS ships with these days. It includes drivers for a vast array of internal and peripheral devices. I could go on... but the last and probably biggest issue is that it's designed to support in-place user upgrades and modifications, but also to support rolling back to the factory default state. That means the entire install footprint is duplicated in an image file (typically compressed and on a different, "recovery" partition).
With that said... I'm still not sure how the hell they managed to use that much space. The base install of Win8 Pro x64 takes around 16GB. Page file and hibernation file, assuming both are active (probable), are 4GB each (default for a 4GB-of-RAM system).The install image fits on a single-layer DVD; it's around 4.2GB. OK... we're up to over 28GB of used space, but now what? Preloaded software could easily use up the remainder, but how much did they preload? Office 2013, depending on edition and optional features, is typically about 1.5GB. A handful of the most popular Windows Store games could take up another gig, if we use a really generous handful (though many of those games are at least 90MB, and some much more). Pre-installed driver utilities, such as for the Intel graphics chip, might be another gig or so, again being generous. It barely reaches 31GB, nowhere near 41GB. I'm confused...
Also, aside from the virtualization, legacy support, and much (but not all) of the server stuff, Windows RT should have the same footprint as Win8 (although a bit less than x64, since there's no need for two versions of each library). Surface RT has only 2GB of RAM, so that's also going to help, and I suspect it doesn't have a hiberfile at all, so cut that part entirely. Still, at the end of the day, that's not going to make up the difference between the pre-used space on Surface RT (about 13GB) and the pre-used space on Surface Pro (supposedly about 40GB). I have no idea how to reconcile those numbers.
The entire Internet, including (especially, in this case) the WWW, is based on published specifications that describe how clients and servers are supposed to interact with each other. Some of these specifications relate to privacy. In particular, there is a thing called a "compact privacy policy" which is a very shorthand way of indicating many of the most salient points of a privacy policy in a machine-readable format. This is a published specification, part of the Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P), described in http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P/.
The goal of P3P is to provide a way for the user of an HTTP client (generally, a web browser) to specify automatic behaviors based on privacy settings. It's not a security feature at all; it's a convenience feature for sites where the user trusts the server to not lie about what its privacy policy is. The idea is that the server sends a compact privacy policy, and the user agent decides what to do based on that policy. It removes the need for the user to manually review each cookie, etc. and decide, based on the info it contains and the policy of the site, what to do with it.
Google, in their infinite not-evilness, decided that P3P is old and broken (somewhat debatable, but they make some good points) and they weren't going to respect the specification. Of course, the usual way that somebody would do this is to not implement it on their end at all; i.e. don't send any compact privacy policy and let the browser do whatever it does with cookies that don't come with privacy info attached. Google thought differently, and decided to instead send a CPP that is interpreted in the following way by P3P-compliant user agents: We have a privacy policy, it is all-inclusive and has no exceptions. Of course, this is a complete lie - Google does do various things which may compromise your privacy, such as track you with cookies. However, they decided that rather than indicate this in the machine-readable format specified in P3P, they would instead send a human-readable English text string, utterly meaningless under the specification, telling people to go read their actual privacy policy. The problem is, the user is never supposed to read the raw CPP. It's a bunch of meaningless characters to anybody unfamiliar with the specification, and generally isn't ever displayed to the user. The end result is that, if the user's browser is configured to use P3P to decide how to handle cookies, Google's cookies are going to be automatically accepted regardless of whether what Google uses those cookies for is actually acceptable to the user.
In a very real sense, Google has published a false security policy. It's not a security exploit - the entire specification is built on trust, as is true of any security policy - but it's a very flagrant violation of that trust and, in the EU, is illegal. That's what they're in hot water for. Apple is only relevant to this story because they use P3P, presumably by default (how many Safari users are going to customize their privacy settings?), and adhere to the specification as written.
"Don't be evil" my ass. By the way, I own zero Apple products and am generally not a fan of the way they treat their users. That does not absolve Google of this kind of bullshit, however.
You realize there are only two version of Win8 that a consumer can get, right? Win8 (equivalent to Win7, Vista or XP "Home") and Win8 Pro (Win7 Pro, Vista Business, XP Pro). There's no "Ultimate" as there was with Vista and 7. There's no "Basic" or "Starter" as there was with Vista and 7. There is "Enterprise" but it's volume-licensing only; not available on retail machines and not available for stand-alone purchase. There's also RT (which is not even branded as Win8, although in truth it's identical except for the architecture it's built for plus literally one flag in the kernel), but Windows has been available on different architectures for literally the entire life of the NT line; nobody over got upset about being unable to run x86 software on their Alpha machines back in the day. You also can't buy RT; ARM devices may come with it, but it's not like somebody is going to purchase a copy of RT by accident, and all the stores I've seen make it very clear that RT can't run x86 apps.
In the face of that, having an ultra-long-term-support edition of Windows really wouldn't be a big deal. As with Enterprise (or volume licensed XP) editions today, it wouldn't be available on the consumer market anyhow.
Unrelated note: with a bit of hacking, RT actually can run third party desktop apps and even (via emulation) run x86 apps. I'm really not sure why MS bothered to prevent the execution of third-party apps unless they were from the store. The "Metro" stuff works fine for a few things, but ranges from "extra work to port for no actual improvement" to "tons of work just to achieve the level of merely a functional downgrade" and all the way down to flat-out "doesn't work; the APIs we need aren't allowed in the sandbox". The dev tools for Windows Store apps are pretty good, but it's a hell of a lot less work to just flip one option in VS and recompile an existing desktop app for ARM.
JoCo generally releases his stuff as Creative Commons (I forget the exact license, but it's listed on his site). It's possible that he wouldn't have had a legal right to sue, depending on exactly what the license requirements were. It's nonetheless a dick move on the part of Glee to rip it off without proper attribution, and I suppose it pushes my estimate of Fox even lower as a company (heh, didn't know that was possible...).
In any case, you're right. Legal battles are expensive and rarely look good even when completely justified. Free advertising and a funny, feel-good story that people will repeat, on the other hand, is exactly what a self-made artist needs.
3.11, at least, could (optionally, if run on a 386 or better) use 32-bit file pointers. I'm not sure if that meant it could actually use FAT32 or not, though.
If that were true, then why is the cell phone contract not lower if I bring my own phone, since there is no subsidy?
Because your mobile operator is a pile of crap beating you with a stick, and for some reason you're going back for another. There are mobile operators which actually treat their users with decent respect, even in the US. Not AT&T or Verizon, for sure... but they aren't the only options.
I've partitioned removable HDDs before (attached via USB), and Windows (Vista and up, at least; never tested XP) can access all the partitions. It's possible on flashdrives as well, though they might not all automatically mount... I'll have to test some more to see what happens there.
Sprint? I'm not even vaguely talking about Sprint. I'm talking about the massive line of bullshit that AT&T fed the FTC, telling them that somehow, buying up what is arguably their only direct competitor would *improve* competition somehow. Sprint, Verizon, and so forth weren't even in my mind. I'm just curious as to whether AT&T thinks they have a better shot at pulling off "no really, this is for the *good* of the GSM users in the USA!" argument this time around... or whether they're even going to try.
Let me guess... this move, by the second-largest US carrier (and largest GSM carrier in the US) is supposed to "improve" competition, just like their last attempt?
It actually goes a bit further than that, even: the inclusion of the USB port and the support for Client Hyper-V (admittedly, it's a bit short on RAM, but it should be enough to, say, virtualize a Linux system) makes this a much more versatile device. I'd say it's cheaper than the MBA, but that goes away when you add the Touch or Type cover for keyboard and trackpad.
Whole disk encryption: BitLocker. It's supported. Connecting to the domain or Exchange server will automatically enable it if the policies mandating such encryption are in place. A login: No fucking shit, it's Win8, of course it has logins and supports password complexity requirements. You're logging in with your domain credentials, after all... Anti-malware: Built into Win8, or you can use third-party if you prefer. Security policies: Again, it's Win8 (Pro, though even RT supports security policies). Did you crack your head on something on your way to write this post? Go see a doctor; you're delusional if you think this won't be supported.
Oh, of course it comes with an on-screen keyboard; all versions of Windows have that even in non-touchscreen devices. Grandparent poster was talking about the Touch Cover and Type Cover, which are available but apparently not included.
Umm... sounds like you're almost as confused as the media. HIV is a virus (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), not a disease. Becoming infected with HIV can result in developing a medical condition, AIDS (Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome). AIDS is, by itself, non-specific as to the source; the disease is, when caused by HIV, referred to as HIV/AIDS. However, in common usage, AIDS almost always refers to HIV/AIDS and is accurately described as a disease.
It is worth noting that many people who are HIV-positive (their blood contains antibodies for HIV, indicating the presence of an infection) do not have AIDS (or any other illness) from it. However, your assertion that we have cures for HIV/AIDS is quite incorrect. We have treatments which can slow the progression of AIDS such that an HIV-positive person may never develop AIDS to a significant degree, at least not within their otherwise normal lifespan, but the virus is still active and the disease may progress to a certain degree nonetheless. This treatment would prevent HIV from multiplying, avoiding development of AIDS entirely (although it's still not a cure for anybody who has already developed AIDS).
Slashdot Mirror
So just use SDHC. 32GB of expandable storage isn't huge, but it would double or triple the internal storage of many tablets on the market today.
Oh, they're both computers. Raspberry Pi is a computer, too. You could make a decent argument for a TI-83 being a computer.
Now, whether either is a PC (Personal Computer, in the sense as used by the industry rather than in the literal definitions of "personal" and "computer") is another question. In no particular order...
Does it run software? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes.
Is it interactive? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes.
Can it be transported by one person? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes.
Is it priced such that a typical adult could afford one? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes.
Can I manage my data on it? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Limited (yes within an app, but no full filesystem access without hacks).
Can I install software on it? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes.
Can I write software for it? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes, with Apple approval or some hackery.
Can I write software on it? Surface Pro: Yes, easily if you use the keyboard covers. iPad: Kind of (you could write the code, especially with a BT keyboard...) but not really, so far as I know (no compiler that will bundle up an app for you that can then be distributed and run).
Can I run arbitrary software on it? Surface Pro: Yes, although you may have to disable Secure Boot to install your own OS. iPad: No, not without hacks.
Can it access the Internet? Surface Pro: Yes. iPad: Yes.
Can I add hardware to it? Surface Pro: Limited yes (USB port, microSD slot, proprietary cover keyboard/trackpads). iPad: Very limited (Bluetooth, stuff that uses the proprietary connector).
Can I connect peripherals to it? Surface Pro: Yes (USB, Bluetooth, microHDMI, proprietary dock port). iPad: Limited (Bluetooth, proprietary dock port).
Can I modify the internal hardware? Surface Pro: No. iPad: No.
Can I modify the OS? Surface Pro: Yes (you have admin, can install drivers, etc.). iPad: No (not without jailbreak hacks).
Is it compatible with other PCs? Surface Pro: Yes mostly (Windows software and drivers, USB peripherals, BT peripherals). iPad: Very limited (iOS software, BT peripherals).
You'd have to stretch the definition of PC pretty far to make it cover iPads. Of course, there have been lots of "PCs" that didn't meet all of these criteria, but the iPad really struggles. It largely comes down to "does the owner have personal control of the machine's computing power?" The Surface Pro is a mostly-unqualified Yes (Secure Boot must be disabled or the other OS must be signed and the signing key be trusted, but that is a supported scenario). The iPad is a mostly-unqualified No (jailbreak hacks, which are completely unsupported, aside).
Android overtook Apple long ago, but otherwise that looks about right. I think Symbian is currently ahead of Blackberry, but Symbian is also officially a retired platform, while Blackberry just released a major new OS, so Symbian will fall behind quickly. Placement between Blackberry and Windows Phone remains to be see, but; WP8 moved before BB10 and I believe there are still more WP7 devices than BB9 devices so the logical upgrade path for those users is going to favor Windows Phone. Still, the combination of everything below Apple (including stuff you didn't even mention, like WebOS and Maemo/MeeGo) is going to be less than Apple for the near future, and the combination of everything less than Android (including Apple) is going to be less than Android for a good while as well (yes, they currently have a strict majority of smartphones).
For the record, Windows RT (which runs on the cheaper Surface tablets and a handful of other devices) can run most legacy Windows apps just fine, so long as they are either re-compiled for ARM or are written in .NET (with no x86-specific dependencies). It requires running a fairly user-friendly unlocking tool, and is quite unofficial, but it works. There's also a project that will (already does, for some software) allow loading an x86 EXE on RT, dynamically recompiling it to ARM, and then running that. This is obviously much slower than compiling for ARM in the first place, but it's already possible to play some legacy Windows games and run some other software (just using the x86 binaries).
Windows Phone, on the other hand... not so much. Although it was eventually discovered how to run third-party EXEs (not simply sideloaded apps, but full-permission executables) on WP7, no such hack is yet available for WP8 to my knowledge.
No brainfuck? Can that tool even recognize Whitespace? Hmph...
On a more serious note, why the hell are there 6 kloc of C# and a hundred lines of PHP in there??
Like what? Serious question, what do you *require* the keyboard for? I mean, typing an email or writing code using the on-screen keyboard isn't pleasant, but it's at least as good as on any other tablet's OSK. The screen is big enough that the key sizing and spacing is very nearly 100% in the default keyboard mode, although it also takes up about half the screen due to the aspect ratio.
The tablet-y stuff (what you'd usually be doing on the couch) is fine using touch alone, or touch plus stylus. For that matter, the stylus can be used for text entry pretty easily; Microsoft's handwriting recognition was meh in XP but improved substantially in Vista and was great by 7; it should be truly superb in 8.
Just FYI: There are already x86 emulators for Windows RT. Good luck getting even Pentium 2 perf out of them (mind you, these are ported by amateurs; MS could probably do better). It's possible to boot XP, if you don't mind taking an extended coffee break while you wait. The realistic clock speed is probably in the double digits, at least for the current crop of emulators which do all the dynamic recompilation on a single thread (thus losing out on the 4-core CPU in the Surface RT).
There's also an emulation layer application, which dynamically recompiles (using a modified DOSBox engine) a single application and any x86 libraries it requires then links it to the system libraries and runs it within Windows RT. This is far faster than emulating an entire CPU (including the kernel-mode-only stuff like page tables and whatnot) and then running a complete OS on it just to run one program in that OS. The perf is still pretty poor - Pentium 2 at best, probably not quite there - but again, this is one random hacker's hobby project, not the work of a team of emulation and compatibility experts. It's also only a few weeks since the project was started.
Of course, this requires using the "jailbreak" hack for RT, which is a lame requirement even if MS has shown no particular interest in shutting it down. There's also a steadily growing library of ported software for RT, including limited support for both Java and Python already.
The funny thing is, your list of "it'll run..." items is also true for Windows RT (Windows on ARM). Surface RT already has software to do all that, and it's not even a particularly cutting edge ARM chip. That said, since Atom has now managed to put itself in the same power-demand range as ARM, it is debatable whether the slightly increased price of the Intel chipset isn't worth the far greater library of available software.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft launch a "Surface Home" (or similarly named) device that has a Surface RT-like form factor (thinner than the Pro, no active cooling), 3 or 4 GB of RAM (Surface RT is fine with 2, but that's short for an x86 machine today), at least 64GB of storage, an Atom CPU, and a 1366x768 display (which is lower than I'd like but is a tolerable DPI on a 10" screen). It would probably cost $600-$700 as described, a bit more if they included a stylus digitizer (which would also probably make the case a bit thicker) or a high-res screen (which is an option I'd pay for if at all reasonably priced). Yeah, it wouldn't be a computing beast, but it would outperform the Surface RT (not by much with the current crop of Atom chips, but by enough to matter), could run just about anything, would have the RT's 8 hour battery life, and would be priced in a range acceptable to students and home users. It would come with Win8 (not Pro) but could be upgraded to Pro for the relatively low in-place upgrade pricing MS offers; this would make it suitable as a BYOD machine above and beyond the capabilities of RT, as it would be able to join domains and such.
What makes a smartphone a different kind of device?
* Touchscreen? Early smartphones didn't have touchscreens, many non-smartphones do.
* Powerful processor? Many "dumbphones" of today have vastly more powerful processors than smartphones of yesteryear. All cell phones have CPUs; the difference is just cost and battery life.
* Graphics processor? Early smartphones lacked them, and these days it's part of the CPU (or rather, the SOC) anyhow. Minor.
* Installable apps? Present on dumbphones for years (Java ME), they just weren't much good and were a pain to install and manage.
* App stores? Old smartphones lacked them, and once you have the ability to run apps in general you can add a store easily.
* Good browser and email? See the comments about apps in general. It just required a powerful enough device with the right input scheme... and the definition of "right input scheme" has changed over time and was never smartphone-specific anyhow (see "texting phones" with better keyboards than most smartphones).
* High-res screen? Minor upgrade, really, and again this is something that "feature phones" have had for years.
The thing that changed the smartphone market wasn't the invention of a new class of device. It was the change from expensive devices that targeted techies, businesspeople, and the wealthy (WinMo, BB, and Symbian, in no particular order) to devices that targeted everyday users and became inexpensive enough to be affordable to the masses. It wasn't the app stores, or the apps themselves, or the browsers, or the YouTube players, or the email clients, or the touchscreens, or any other single class of smartphone feature. It was the combination of those, and the goal of targeting (and marketing to, very successfully) the general populace.
How do you compete with that? Target people who today wouldn't even have phones at all? This is possible, but mostly means going after increasingly small niche markets filled with people who have no money, so their parents or caregivers or whatnot must purchase for them. Provide a device that doubles as phone and PC? That may work, but tablets and even smartphones are increasingly getting there already. Provide a radically new interface (direct mental connection, VR, whatever)? OK, but you'd have to do it in a way that surpasses what can be done with a smartphone and a few months of work on the hardware... while still providing the features of a smartphone.
No, the most likely thing to upset the status quo is if the current big players get lazy and complacent. WinMo (or something descended from it) could still be rocking along with a 20%+ market share if MS had brought out an iPhone- or Android-like overhaul of the interface years ago. Hell, given that they had a platform to start from, they could be well above that. But they didn't; Microsoft, along with RIM, got blindsided by the consumer smartphone craze, and despite their head start in smartphones as a category, they were too slow to adapt to the immense change in the market. If iOS and Android ever stop working to provide everything that a user could want, and instead settle into a comfortable position of feeding their cash cow just enough to keep milking it, sooner or later somebody will release something new that offers what users really wanted but weren't getting, and will market it well, and will steal large amounts of market share before the current leaders can react. But, I'd be surprised if that happens any time soon.
I've had trouble with pushes containing multiple commits that include changes to the same binary file, but I'm running an unofficial port of Git that is probably a bit out of date even if there isn't an actual issue in the port itself.
Wrong and wrong. The NTDEV project (now, generally, "Windows") has been using Source Depot (Microsoft's internal Perforce) since well before VSTS existed, and given the size of the existing code base, much less the immense revision history, migrating to another version control scheme is very much a "if it ain't broke..." situation.
However, many other teams within MS, especially those working on newly developed or re-written code, use VSTS/TFS. This is even true for many smaller projects that would be described as "Windows" stuff, so long as they aren't built as part of the nightly builds or included as dependencies of anything that are. TFS is also used for many other things; the NTDEV folks use it for its task management features (although not the bug tracker, which is also a legacy program they apparently didn't want to migrate off of), while many other groups use it for bug tracking as well.
I never heard of anybody using Visual SourceSafe, though. I don't even recall it ever being mentioned. Subversion was more likely.
You suspect correctly, but bear in mind that Win8 (as runs on Surface Pro) really *is* a full desktop OS. It contains things like backward compatibility with previous Windows versions and the software written for them (which means, among other things, a shitload of different versions of the same libraries). It also contains features like full hypervisor-based virtualization and management tools for it (Client Hyper-V), tons of system management tools (Event Viewer, Resource Monitor, Disk Management, Local Security Policy, etc.). It contains built-in scripting environments (CMD, Powershell, Windows Script Host, etc.), build tools (compilers for all the core .NET languages, at a minimum), and web developer/debugger tools in the browser. It contains a suite of server software - local file and printer (SMB), remote login (Remote Desktop, Powershell remoting), FTP, HTTP(S), and so on, with support for ASP.NET and whatever else IIS ships with these days. It includes drivers for a vast array of internal and peripheral devices. I could go on... but the last and probably biggest issue is that it's designed to support in-place user upgrades and modifications, but also to support rolling back to the factory default state. That means the entire install footprint is duplicated in an image file (typically compressed and on a different, "recovery" partition).
With that said... I'm still not sure how the hell they managed to use that much space. The base install of Win8 Pro x64 takes around 16GB. Page file and hibernation file, assuming both are active (probable), are 4GB each (default for a 4GB-of-RAM system).The install image fits on a single-layer DVD; it's around 4.2GB. OK... we're up to over 28GB of used space, but now what? Preloaded software could easily use up the remainder, but how much did they preload? Office 2013, depending on edition and optional features, is typically about 1.5GB. A handful of the most popular Windows Store games could take up another gig, if we use a really generous handful (though many of those games are at least 90MB, and some much more). Pre-installed driver utilities, such as for the Intel graphics chip, might be another gig or so, again being generous. It barely reaches 31GB, nowhere near 41GB. I'm confused...
Also, aside from the virtualization, legacy support, and much (but not all) of the server stuff, Windows RT should have the same footprint as Win8 (although a bit less than x64, since there's no need for two versions of each library). Surface RT has only 2GB of RAM, so that's also going to help, and I suspect it doesn't have a hiberfile at all, so cut that part entirely. Still, at the end of the day, that's not going to make up the difference between the pre-used space on Surface RT (about 13GB) and the pre-used space on Surface Pro (supposedly about 40GB). I have no idea how to reconcile those numbers.
The entire Internet, including (especially, in this case) the WWW, is based on published specifications that describe how clients and servers are supposed to interact with each other. Some of these specifications relate to privacy. In particular, there is a thing called a "compact privacy policy" which is a very shorthand way of indicating many of the most salient points of a privacy policy in a machine-readable format. This is a published specification, part of the Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P), described in http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P/.
The goal of P3P is to provide a way for the user of an HTTP client (generally, a web browser) to specify automatic behaviors based on privacy settings. It's not a security feature at all; it's a convenience feature for sites where the user trusts the server to not lie about what its privacy policy is. The idea is that the server sends a compact privacy policy, and the user agent decides what to do based on that policy. It removes the need for the user to manually review each cookie, etc. and decide, based on the info it contains and the policy of the site, what to do with it.
Google, in their infinite not-evilness, decided that P3P is old and broken (somewhat debatable, but they make some good points) and they weren't going to respect the specification. Of course, the usual way that somebody would do this is to not implement it on their end at all; i.e. don't send any compact privacy policy and let the browser do whatever it does with cookies that don't come with privacy info attached. Google thought differently, and decided to instead send a CPP that is interpreted in the following way by P3P-compliant user agents:
We have a privacy policy, it is all-inclusive and has no exceptions.
Of course, this is a complete lie - Google does do various things which may compromise your privacy, such as track you with cookies. However, they decided that rather than indicate this in the machine-readable format specified in P3P, they would instead send a human-readable English text string, utterly meaningless under the specification, telling people to go read their actual privacy policy. The problem is, the user is never supposed to read the raw CPP. It's a bunch of meaningless characters to anybody unfamiliar with the specification, and generally isn't ever displayed to the user. The end result is that, if the user's browser is configured to use P3P to decide how to handle cookies, Google's cookies are going to be automatically accepted regardless of whether what Google uses those cookies for is actually acceptable to the user.
In a very real sense, Google has published a false security policy. It's not a security exploit - the entire specification is built on trust, as is true of any security policy - but it's a very flagrant violation of that trust and, in the EU, is illegal. That's what they're in hot water for. Apple is only relevant to this story because they use P3P, presumably by default (how many Safari users are going to customize their privacy settings?), and adhere to the specification as written.
"Don't be evil" my ass. By the way, I own zero Apple products and am generally not a fan of the way they treat their users. That does not absolve Google of this kind of bullshit, however.
You realize there are only two version of Win8 that a consumer can get, right? Win8 (equivalent to Win7, Vista or XP "Home") and Win8 Pro (Win7 Pro, Vista Business, XP Pro). There's no "Ultimate" as there was with Vista and 7. There's no "Basic" or "Starter" as there was with Vista and 7. There is "Enterprise" but it's volume-licensing only; not available on retail machines and not available for stand-alone purchase. There's also RT (which is not even branded as Win8, although in truth it's identical except for the architecture it's built for plus literally one flag in the kernel), but Windows has been available on different architectures for literally the entire life of the NT line; nobody over got upset about being unable to run x86 software on their Alpha machines back in the day. You also can't buy RT; ARM devices may come with it, but it's not like somebody is going to purchase a copy of RT by accident, and all the stores I've seen make it very clear that RT can't run x86 apps.
In the face of that, having an ultra-long-term-support edition of Windows really wouldn't be a big deal. As with Enterprise (or volume licensed XP) editions today, it wouldn't be available on the consumer market anyhow.
Unrelated note: with a bit of hacking, RT actually can run third party desktop apps and even (via emulation) run x86 apps. I'm really not sure why MS bothered to prevent the execution of third-party apps unless they were from the store. The "Metro" stuff works fine for a few things, but ranges from "extra work to port for no actual improvement" to "tons of work just to achieve the level of merely a functional downgrade" and all the way down to flat-out "doesn't work; the APIs we need aren't allowed in the sandbox". The dev tools for Windows Store apps are pretty good, but it's a hell of a lot less work to just flip one option in VS and recompile an existing desktop app for ARM.
JoCo generally releases his stuff as Creative Commons (I forget the exact license, but it's listed on his site). It's possible that he wouldn't have had a legal right to sue, depending on exactly what the license requirements were. It's nonetheless a dick move on the part of Glee to rip it off without proper attribution, and I suppose it pushes my estimate of Fox even lower as a company (heh, didn't know that was possible...).
In any case, you're right. Legal battles are expensive and rarely look good even when completely justified. Free advertising and a funny, feel-good story that people will repeat, on the other hand, is exactly what a self-made artist needs.
3.11, at least, could (optionally, if run on a 386 or better) use 32-bit file pointers. I'm not sure if that meant it could actually use FAT32 or not, though.
Because your mobile operator is a pile of crap beating you with a stick, and for some reason you're going back for another. There are mobile operators which actually treat their users with decent respect, even in the US. Not AT&T or Verizon, for sure... but they aren't the only options.
I've partitioned removable HDDs before (attached via USB), and Windows (Vista and up, at least; never tested XP) can access all the partitions. It's possible on flashdrives as well, though they might not all automatically mount... I'll have to test some more to see what happens there.
Sprint? I'm not even vaguely talking about Sprint. I'm talking about the massive line of bullshit that AT&T fed the FTC, telling them that somehow, buying up what is arguably their only direct competitor would *improve* competition somehow. Sprint, Verizon, and so forth weren't even in my mind. I'm just curious as to whether AT&T thinks they have a better shot at pulling off "no really, this is for the *good* of the GSM users in the USA!" argument this time around... or whether they're even going to try.
Let me guess... this move, by the second-largest US carrier (and largest GSM carrier in the US) is supposed to "improve" competition, just like their last attempt?
It actually goes a bit further than that, even: the inclusion of the USB port and the support for Client Hyper-V (admittedly, it's a bit short on RAM, but it should be enough to, say, virtualize a Linux system) makes this a much more versatile device. I'd say it's cheaper than the MBA, but that goes away when you add the Touch or Type cover for keyboard and trackpad.
In a word: yes.
Whole disk encryption: BitLocker. It's supported. Connecting to the domain or Exchange server will automatically enable it if the policies mandating such encryption are in place.
A login: No fucking shit, it's Win8, of course it has logins and supports password complexity requirements. You're logging in with your domain credentials, after all...
Anti-malware: Built into Win8, or you can use third-party if you prefer.
Security policies: Again, it's Win8 (Pro, though even RT supports security policies). Did you crack your head on something on your way to write this post? Go see a doctor; you're delusional if you think this won't be supported.
Oh, of course it comes with an on-screen keyboard; all versions of Windows have that even in non-touchscreen devices. Grandparent poster was talking about the Touch Cover and Type Cover, which are available but apparently not included.
http://bellard.org/jslinux
You can even run it on a smartphone! (The perf will be *terrible* but you can do it).
Umm... sounds like you're almost as confused as the media. HIV is a virus (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), not a disease. Becoming infected with HIV can result in developing a medical condition, AIDS (Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome). AIDS is, by itself, non-specific as to the source; the disease is, when caused by HIV, referred to as HIV/AIDS. However, in common usage, AIDS almost always refers to HIV/AIDS and is accurately described as a disease.
It is worth noting that many people who are HIV-positive (their blood contains antibodies for HIV, indicating the presence of an infection) do not have AIDS (or any other illness) from it. However, your assertion that we have cures for HIV/AIDS is quite incorrect. We have treatments which can slow the progression of AIDS such that an HIV-positive person may never develop AIDS to a significant degree, at least not within their otherwise normal lifespan, but the virus is still active and the disease may progress to a certain degree nonetheless. This treatment would prevent HIV from multiplying, avoiding development of AIDS entirely (although it's still not a cure for anybody who has already developed AIDS).